31 research outputs found
The methodological status of co-authorship networks
No full textA powerful strategy within the study of collaboration
in science is to posit that co-authorship patterns
represent social networks.
It is prerequisite to an application of Social
Network Analysis (SNA) to define the network
entities. A network analysis of the inter-institutional
collaboration in COLLNET on the basis
of co-authorships was conducted. The study reveals
that it is crucial whether the co-authorship
itself is seen as an author's relational property or
as a social event that brings the authors together.
The former possibility is represented by a onemode
network in which each author can be related
to each other author. Quite distinct from
that are two-mode networks, the latter approach.
They consist of two single data sets in which relations
are only possible between different sets.
Different modes of representations require
different network approaches. One is that co-authorship
networks are seen as one-mode networks,
which has the advantage of the application
of a variety of measures. In contrast, twomode
networks, the other option, cannot be analysed
by standard techniques but its distinctive
features demand a new conceptualisation of
measures. In conclusion, the two-mode perspective
is more promising because it allows a dual
perspective on collaboration in science which includes
researchers as well as their scientific output
Well-ordered Collaboration Structures of Co-Author Pairs in Journals
No full textIn single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka´s law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered. Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka’s law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science “laws” or “regularities” (for example Lotka’s law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data in form of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio-psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka’s law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter
The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks in Scientometrics
No full textThe structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics was investigated at the level of individuals by using bibliographic data of all papers published in the international journal Scientometrics retrieved from the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1978 to 2004. Combined analysis of social network analysis (SNA), co-occurrence analysis, cluster analysis and frequency analysis of words was explored to reveal: (1) The microstructure of the collaboration network on scientists’ aspects of scientometrics; (2) The major collaborative fields of the collaborative sub-networks; (3) The collaborative center of the collaboration network in scientometrics
Bibliographics for the 983 eprints in the live archives of E-LIS : trends and status report up to 7th July 2004, based on author-self-archiving metadata
No full textThe priority for ideas and philosophy related to "Network Theory" have been traced back and documented by Braun(2004),and credit goes to Karinthy(1929).The IT has empowered to realise it, as the most practical phenomena and it is no more a humour. The OAI (Open Archives Initiatives)and ACIS (Academic Contributor Information System)are progressive in the direction ,which may lead to realise the "Collective Genius" at global level. Focus of present study is on Author-Self-Archiving (A-S-A)Metadata of the 983 Eprints in the Live Archives of the E-LIS (EPrints of Library and Information Science),which were approved till 7th July 2004.The A-S-A Metadata was used for librametric analysis. Self-explanatory bibliographics are illustrated.The highlights include: Conference papers (34%); highest approval, June 2004 (28%); published archives (76%);not refereed (52%); not in public domain (60%); highest self-archiving-author (De Robbio, Antonella).The Nos. of EPrints having single JITA domain specifications were: Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information(27); Information use and sociology of information(80);Users,literacy and reading(13);Libraries as physical collections(30);Publishing and legal issues(57);Management(13);Industry, profession and education(36);Information sources, supports, channels(113) ; Information treatment for information services, Information functions and techniques (101); Technical services libraries, archives and museums(25); Housing technologies(1); Information technology and library technology(92); and Inter-domainery (395) i.e. having specifications of two or more than two JITA classes
Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web
No full text
Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law
No full textIt is empirically shown that, even using the normal or total counting procedure, Lotka's law breaks down when articles with a large, i.e., more than hundred, number of authors are included in the bibliography, The explanation of this phenomenon is that the conditions for an application of the basic success-breeds-success model are not fulfilled any more. Studying articles with many authors means dealing with items (the articles) having multiple sources (the authors), hence Egghe's generalized success-breeds-success model, leading to not necessarily decreasing distributions, explains the observed irregularities
Social stratification of authors revealed from the coauthorship network
No full textSeven bibliographies frm the fields of medicine, physics and social sciences were used. The authors were classified by groups i n accordance with the number of publications per author. Studies were made t o detenine the statistically expected number of coauthorships by proceeding fran assuming an independence of coauthorship between authors from the number of their publications.
Hypothesis : The proportion of the sum of coauthorship found between authors with the same number of publications t o the sun of the statistically expected one i s larger than the proportion of the sum of coauthorships found between authors with a different number of
publications t o the sum of the statistically expected one. This hypothesis could be verified i n all seven bibliographies.
Coauthorships between authors do not come i n t o being independently of the nunber of their publications, i .e. o f their social ranks
Distribution of Co-Author Pairs’ Frequencies of the Journal of Biological Chemistry Explained as Social Gestalt
No full textSocial stratification of authors revealed from the coauthorship network
No full textSeven bibliographies frm the fields of medicine, physics and social sciences were used. The authors were classified by groups i n accordance with the number of publications per author. Studies were made t o detenine the statistically expected number of coauthorships by proceeding fran assuming an independence of coauthorship between authors from the number of their publications.
Hypothesis : The proportion of the sum of coauthorship found between authors with the same number of publications t o the sun of the statistically expected one i s larger than the proportion of the sum of coauthorships found between authors with a different number of
publications t o the sum of the statistically expected one. This hypothesis could be verified i n all seven bibliographies.
Coauthorships between authors do not come i n t o being independently of the nunber of their publications, i .e. o f their social ranks
